04/15/2020
Below is a recent case that shows the difficulty in proving co-habitation in New Jersey to reduce Alimony. The husband is paying $14000 per month, a large enough sum for wife and her partner to got to great lengths to keep up enough separation to rebut an argument of co-habitation. In hindsight, because of the large monthly support payment, the husband should have required additional language in their settlement agreement that would suffice for co-habitation.
FAMILY LAW
20-2-4220 Garcia-Travieso v. Garcia-Travieso, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (20 pp.) Defendant appealed from that part of a Family Part order denying his motion to terminate his alimony obligation to plaintiff, his former wife, based on her alleged cohabitation. The parties were married on May 7, 1993 and had three children together. A dual judgment of divorce, with an accompanying matrimonial settlement agreement, was entered by the court on April 21, 2014. The MSA required defendant to pay plaintiff $14,000 per month in alimony, terminating upon either party's death or plaintiff's remarriage. The MSA further provided defendant's alimony obligation may be modified or terminated upon the cohabitation of plaintiff, pursuant to the law at that time. Defendant certified that plaintiff's new partner was actively involved in plaintiff's family and life events, was a significant part of the children's lives, that he and plaintiff vacationed together on several occasions, that he assisted plaintiff with household chores, that he was present at plaintiff's home on a regular basis, that he loaned plaintiff approximately $50,000 to complete the construction of her home, and that he and plaintiff's relationship had become increasingly committed, exclusive, and marriage like. Defendant provided details regarding plaintiff's partner's involvement in his daughter's fifteenth birthday celebration to show the two could not be living in separate households. Defendant also supported his application with a report from a private investigator. Plaintiff argued her new partner resided in Connecticut, she repaid him the money she borrowed from him, and that they covered their own expenses. Plaintiff's new partner also submitted a certification showing receipts and his Connecticut lease and related bills. The court denied defendant's request, finding he had not met the burden of a prima facie showing of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court noted its review of a decision not to modify alimony was under an abuse of discretion standard. The court found no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that defendant failed to make a prima facie showing that plaintiff and her new partner were cohabitating. The court noted the changed circumstances standard of Lepis, 83 N.J. at 157, continues to apply to a motion to suspend or terminate alimony based on cohabitation following the 2014 amendments to the alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(n), per Landau v. Landau, 461 N.J. Super. 107-08 (App. Div. 2019). Although the court did not separately identify the factors it considered in rendering its opinion, the court found the applicable factors adequately addressed.
